Agenda item - BH2013/00500 - 119 Portland Road, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Erection of 1no. three bedroom dwelling house.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of 1no. three bedroom dwelling house.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Presentation from Officer(s)

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application sought to infill the garden, and retain a small forecourt for the attached building; the building would be set in from the rear boundary. The application would require the removal of an attractive bay window; the loss of a terrace area, and the removal of plant/equipment to a less suitable location. The proposed dwelling would be a 2 storey, flat roof building, and gave the impression of a squat building that would be inappropriate with the surrounding area. There would be no windows in the east elevational, and therefore no concern in relation to overlooking. Officers were concerned that this development would impact of the neighbouring buildings, and create a heightened sense of enclosure – especially in the neighbouring garden. It was acknowledged that this was an efficient use of the gap, but any proposal had to be appropriately contextual, and it was felt the proposed did not relate well. There would be harm through: the relocation of the plant equipment and impact of the neighbouring amenity, and the proposed garden size was considered to be inadequate. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Councillor Cox spoke in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. He stated that an extension had been built in the past for the popular convenience store, but the viability of the store had been undermined since permission had been granted for a nearby ‘Sainsburys’. He had canvassed local views about the application and found that the majority of residents were in favour of the scheme; the scheme would be appropriate for the area. There was an acceptance of the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, but the design had been such to help mitigate this. Councillor Cox asked the Committee to support the application.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Hawtree it was explained by Councillor Cox that the gap had been lost in the property across the road.

(5)                   Mr Lumba spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that he was the owner of the adjoining building and had lived there for 25 years, and his business had been affected since the opening of the ‘Sainsburys’. He noted that similar designs had been constructed in the area, and the design attempted to echo the surrounding area. Every effort had been made to prevent impact, and the design had been set in at the rear. The design was not unsympathetic, and would not stand out more than any other building, and there were letters of support from neighbours. The proposals would provide good family accommodation; close to local amenities.

Questions for Officers

(6)                   In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the footprint of both the proposed dwelling and the existing building were given.

(7)                   Councillor Bowden asked if there were any windows overlooking from the neighbour on Rutland Road, and it was confirmed there were none, the building would be set up against the boundary and the affected property had submitted a letter of objection.

(8)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hawtree that there would be a garden at the ground floor and a terrace at the first floor.

(9)                   Using photographs it was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty the potential impact on the street scene.

(10)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the existing yard for the shop would be lost in this application, and Officers were concerned about this loss.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Cobb stated that she felt sympathy for the applicant in relation to impact on his business, and the design was quite fitting and matched the previous extension. It was confirmed by Officers that they considered the loss of light was significant to cause material harm, and it was considered the proposals were unneighbourly.

(12)               Councillor Jones noted that he felt the application fitted with the street scene, but he noted the impact on the neighbouring garden and stated he would support the officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he was not convinced that the design was compelling.

(14)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 in favour with 2 abstentions.

192.11  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below.

i. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its design, scale and siting, relates poorly to the adjacent properties and to the host property and would stand out in the street scene as an incongruous and unsympathetic addition.The proposed dwelling is therefore considered overdevelopment of the site and would look out of character with the existing residential development in the area. For this reason the development is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HO4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan which seek to ensure that new developments emphasise and enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood.

ii. The scheme proposes relocating existing plant to the side elevation of the property fronting Rutland Road and the removal of one of the rear first floor windows. These alterations would significantly detract from the appearance of the host property and would stand out in the street scene as unsympathetic alterations. The scheme is therefore considered contrary to policies QD1 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iii Due to the position and bulk of the proposed dwelling, the proposal would result in a significant loss of outlook, light and a heightened sense of enclosure to the residents of117A Portland Road. The proposal would therefore lead to an unacceptable material loss of amenity and is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iv The scheme does not include suitably sized outside private amenity areas which would be appropriate for a family sized dwelling. The scheme is therefore considered contrary to policy HO5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

v. The ground floor bedroom would suffer severe lack of privacy or have limited light and outlook if blinds or curtains were constantly drawn to the window serving the bedroom in order to maintain privacy. The lounge area also has limited outlook and light with one window facing south. Having regard to the above, the scheme is deemed to result in an inappropriate standard of accommodation and is contrary to policies SU2, QD2 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

i In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

Note: Councillors Carden, Davey, Ken Norman and Carol Theobald were not present during the discussion and vote on this application.